[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AC287F2.8060603@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:19:30 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][v7][PATCH 8/9]: Define clone2() syscall
On 09/29/2009 03:11 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Ok, I agree with that. The kernel side is easy (we have magic calling
> conventions there and need to turn registers into arguments anyway before
> you get to the shared code), but your point about the user side prototype
> is valid.
>
I think it would also apply to kernel-side munging. It's quite possibly
you're right in that clone is such a special case anyway, but it seems
pointless to make it more special in the short bus sort of way even if
it is possible.
Let's just make it another system call. It doesn't have any downside
that I can see, might prevent problems, and avoids setting a bad
precedent that someone can misinterpret.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists